..I'm not sure what is so baffling about this topic. Were you here in 2008 when he joined? Have you taken a look at all his posts in general? Probably no to both. Fact is, he might be "nice" to you but what does that have to do with his clownish behavior elsewhere? Maybe he should be unbanned and only be allowed to talk to TigerTim. People, or rather his supporters, are taking this way too narrow and not looking at the big picture. As was mentioned several times, Clay Fail was absolutely atrocious early on, he got banned a couple of times for his behavior, got warned many times, got a little better but continued to show his foolishness here and there which has led to what it is now. End of story really.

Regardless, if he does get un-permabanned, I'm sure there were be other requests to look at other permabanned posters as well, which is why I think the mods will most likely keep Clay Fail banned because making an exception will make them look like they poorly executed the banning in the first place and it will cause additional questions afterwards.

This isn't true.
Sometimes things are looked at from a different perspective and a decision is reversed. This would show that the decision makers are doing their job and trying to be fair.

I'm pretty sure they spent some time on this decision before handing out the permban, but at times more information is needed and is a help no matter if the decision is confirmed or not.

It could be others may try to get some of the past permbanned off the hook, this has no bearing on this case.
Each case was determined on it's own merits with the information available I would guess.

I would also guess that the decision makers wouldn't especially like to change their decision, not because of the cases merits but it's a little like admitting that maybe the decision was made too hastily.
It's human nature to avoid this kind of situation, but many have been applauded for standing up to that kind of criticism.

I honestly doubt if any of you read what I actually posted. I haven't said once that Clay Death's ban is correct. What I'm challenging is all his supporters here who are blindly backing him when they don't know what his actual offenses are. How can you be so sure he shouldn't be permanently banned when you have no idea how many infractions he has had and what the content of his deleted posts were? From what I have seen of him on GM since he arrived on MTF I am not surprised at all that it has come to this. In fact I thought he was pretty lucky to have not been permanently banned in 2008. A lot of you are defending him weren't around then - he was literally one of the most tiresome and insufferable trolls ever to grace this forum and that is saying something. He has changed since then admittedly but it doesn't change the fact he was already given a big chance back then. You can still see shades of the old Clay Death this year when the right people push his buttons. He has been tethering on the brink of the rules for the entire time he has been here. What I've been trying to say the whole is that none of us know exactly how the decision was made. I highly doubt it was because he had X number of very minor infractions like some of you are implying. None of you have concrete reason as to why the decision was wrong. All you keep saying is that he was a good bloke and contributed to the forum. That alone is not exactly a reason for someone to escape a permanent ban. On the same token I'm not saying the moderators decision is absolutely correct either.

Masterclass are you trying to scare people away with your huge blocks of text or what? My comment about it being reviewed has nothing to do with CD. It's a comment on the moderation here. Maybe you should read my post properly without your rose tinted glasses on. For someone with a history as long as CD to get permanently banned it would be fair to assume the moderators spent a significant amount of time coming to this decision, no? For them to review it straight away and revoke the ban (should this be the final outcome) undermines their authority and makes them look like a bit of joke if I'm being honest.

It's been a long time since I've ever read such an eloquent and right-on-the-mark post on this kind of matters on this forum.

The biggest forum clowns though, consist for some reason mostly of Nadaltards (see the ACC results).

Quote:

But he was also insulting and like many have said HAD A HISTORY OF PERSONAL ATTACKS AND SUBSEQUENT BANS. He is not a martyr, not a victim of corrupt moderation, not an innocent bystander. For years he was knowingly balancing on the edge and finally he tipped over it.

"Logical discussion" you say, right after calling him Hercules? Embarrassing.

Because he was only a nice bloke TO SOME people. To others he was a bully. Clear enough for you?

Anyway, I find it funny how some Nadaltards bullshit around all day and then claim they are being mistreated just because the mods are Fedtards. You are not special, nor are you mistreated. Whatever you get, you probably deserve. This goes for everyone on this forum - you know how much shit you have to do to get banned here? It's a joke really.

Personally I have nothing against Nadalfans per se even though I really dislike Rafa. I have nothing against Groove or mimi or Arkulari or hat_boy or even guys like Topspindoctor or GSMNadal even though I think they are clownish sometimes (because so are Fedtards). The biggest forum clowns though, consist for some reason mostly of Nadaltards (see the ACC results). CD was one of these. He was a distinctive poster, that's true, and the reason for that was that he was so repetitive. But he was also insulting and like many have said HAD A HISTORY OF PERSONAL ATTACKS AND SUBSEQUENT BANS. He is not a martyr, not a victim of corrupt moderation, not an innocent bystander. For years he was knowingly balancing on the edge and finally he tipped over it.

I do not and will not ever argue that random Nadaltards should be banned from this forum. The different fanbases make this place somewhat interesting. But I do think that guys who have had countless second chances should logically run out of them eventually.

First of all, I am by no means a Nadal 'fan'. That doesn't stop me being friends with them though.

Secondly, Hercules is an acceptable nickname to refer to him by, as he himself requested people called him that while he was still on the forum.

Thirdly, why do you believe that second chances shouldn't be given, or at least not continuously given, when somebody has proved their worth?

P.S. I find it hilarious that people who argued for a ban to be reduced and evidently the beneficiary of those arguments, support CD’s banning. Who is to say CD’s infractions weren’t “harmless?” I don’t know what he did. Maybe the answer is hidden somewhere in the thread, but I didn’t see it.

I feel the same. I would hide in my house and not speak a word, smiling at my good luck instead, and not doing something like a thief calling the other person a thief (no offence, Chinese saying).

__________________Rafa! Rafa! Rafa!

Epic movies, like brokeback mountain, are seldom found in the industry or worthy for the mainstream viewer. As often as I have watched the clips of this movie, I always find something more to it. For one, the gay stuff doesn't enter the picture for me, only the dimension of the highest love I have ever witnessed in life or on film.

P.S. I find it hilarious that people who argued for a ban to be reduced and evidently the beneficiary of those arguments, support CD’s banning. Who is to say CD’s infractions weren’t “harmless?” I don’t know what he did. Maybe the answer is hidden somewhere in the thread, but I didn’t see it.

We have reviewed your feedback regarding the banning of Clay Death. After discussing the issue with the administrators and moderators, we have decided not to alter Clay Death's ban.

During his time on this forum, Clay Death accumulated more than 20 infractions, easily exceeding the number of violations we typically tolerate before permanently banning members.

He had been previously banned for his violations of the rules, and even had a 1-year ban significantly reduced after promising to improve his behavior.

Yet, despite all the warnings and second chances, he continued to engage in frequent personal attacks on other posters.

Unfortunately for him, his last spree of insults and personal attacks did not go unnoticed by the moderators. Upon review of his recent behaviour, we reached the decision that Clay Death had been given enough chances, and it was time for his account to be banned from posting on the forum for good.

We understand that Clay Death was popular among some members and frequently contributed to the forum. However, popularity is no excuse for breaking forum rules, and the fact remains that Clay Death, despite numerous warnings, was either unwilling or incapable of participating in the forum without attacking other members. For this reason, the ban on his account will not be lifted.

Thank you for understanding. We realise this will not be a popular decision in some quarters but having exhaustively reviewed the situation and his history, we feel it is the correct decision.